scholarly journals The impact of inclusion, dose and duration of pyrazinamide (PZA) on efficacy and safety outcomes in tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Millard ◽  
Elizabeth A. Mackay ◽  
Laura J. Bonnett ◽  
Geraint R. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

Abstract Background Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a key component of current and future regimens for tuberculosis (TB). Inclusion of PZA at higher doses and for longer durations may improve efficacy outcomes but must be balanced against the potential for worse safety outcomes. Methods We will search for randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials in adult participants with and without the inclusion of PZA in TB treatment regimens in the Cochrane infectious diseases group’s trials register, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the World Health Organization (WHO) international clinical trials registry platform. One author will screen abstracts and remove ineligible studies (10% of which will be double-screened by a second author). Two authors will review full texts for inclusion. Safety and efficacy data will be extracted to pre-piloted forms by one author (10% of which will be double-extracted by a second author). The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess study quality. The study has three objectives: the association of (1) inclusion, (2) dose and (3) duration of PZA with efficacy and safety outcomes. Risk ratios as relative measures of effect for direct comparisons within trials (all objectives) and proportions as absolute measures of effect for indirect comparisons across trials (for objectives 2 and 3) will be calculated. If there is insufficient data for direct comparisons within trials for objective 1, indirect comparisons between trials will be performed. Measures of effect will be pooled, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and p values. Meta-analysis will be performed using the generalised inverse variance method for fixed effects models (FEM) or the DerSimonian-Laird method for random effects models (REM). For indirect comparisons, meta-regression for absolute measures against dose and duration data will be performed. Heterogeneity will be quantified through the I2-statistic for direct comparisons and the τ2 statistic for indirect comparisons using meta-regression. Discussion The current use of PZA for TB is based on over 60 years of clinical trial data, but this has never been synthesised to guide rationale use in future regimens and clinical trials. Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019138735

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of interferons for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Noormandi ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Time Of Administration

Background and objective: COVID-19 has since been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), infecting millions worldwide. The use of Interferon (INF) subtypes previously examined in the treatment of SARS and MERS is also being initiated in some clinical trials. Although different clinical trials were evaluated IFNs in the treatment of COVID-19, their efficacy and safety remain unknown. Therefore, this study aims to systematically assess IFNs efficacy and safety in treating patients with COVID-19. Methods: The protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register (CRD42020200643) on 24 July 2020. This protocol has been arranged according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. Discussion: Due to lack of approved medication for the covid-19 treatment and also various mutations of this virus, evaluated the efficacy and safety of medications by various studies could help for finding treatments with high effectiveness. IFNs are one of the medications that have been administered in covid-19 infection.  Moreover, the best time of administration and dose of this medication was unknown. Although meta-analysis is a potent source for assessing the accuracy of subjects, heterogeneity of articles is a potent limitation of our work.

scholarly journals Antihypertensive therapies in moderate or severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e036960
Author(s):  
Jonathan Sen ◽  
Erin Chung ◽  
Christopher Neil ◽  
Thomas Marwick
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety Outcomes

BackgroundHypertension confers a poor prognosis in moderate or severe aortic stenosis (AS), however, antihypertensive therapy (AHT) is often not prescribed due to the perceived deleterious effects of vasodilation and negative inotropes.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of AHT in adults with moderate or severe AS.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and grey literature were searched without language restrictions up to 9 September 2019.Study eligibility criteria, appraisal and synthesis methodsTwo independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments from a systematic search of observational studies and randomised controlled trials comparing AHT with a placebo or no AHT in adults with moderate or severe AS for any parameter of efficacy and safety outcomes. Conflicts were resolved by the third reviewer. Meta-analysis with pooled effect sizes using random-effects model, were estimated in R.Main outcome measuresMortality, Left Ventricular (LV) Mass Index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LV ejection fractionResultsFrom 3025 publications, 31 studies (26 500 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 24 studies in the meta-analysis. AHT was not associated with mortality when all studies were pooled, but heterogeneity was substantial across studies. The effect size of AHT differed according to drug class. Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) were associated with reduced risk of mortality (Pooled HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, p=0.006), The differences in changes of haemodynamic or echocardiographic parameters from baseline with and without AHT did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionAHT appears safe, is well tolerated. RAASi were associated with clinical benefit in patients with moderate or severe AS.

scholarly journals Efficacy of miltefosine compared with glucantime for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. e2019011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohrab Iranpour ◽  
Ali Hosseinzadeh ◽  
Abbas Alipour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cutaneous Leishmaniasis ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Trim And Fill

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is most common form of leishmaniasis and is characterized by ulcerative skin lesions. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials that compared the efficacy of miltefosine and glucantime for the treatment of CL. We searched the following databases: Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal of World Health Organization, Sid, Irandoc, Magiran, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used keywords including “miltefosine,” “glucantime,” and “Leishmania.” The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A random-effects model was employed for the analysis. We assessed heterogeneity by the chi-square test and the I2 index statistic. When heterogeneity was present, meta-regression analyses were performed. The Egger method was used to assess publication bias; when it was significant, the trim-and-fill method was used to test and adjust for publication bias. A total of 1,570 reports were identified, of which 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between the efficacy of miltefosine and glucantime; however, subgroup analysis showed that, regarding parasite species other than Leishmania braziliensis, miltefosine was significantly superior to glucantime (intention to treat; relative risk, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.32). In the meta-regression, only the glucantime injection type was significant at the p=0.1 level. The Egger test found statistically significant publication bias; however, including the 3 missing studies in the trim-and-fill analysis did not change the results. This meta-analysis found that miltefosine seems to be more effective than glucantime, at least in species other than L. braziliensis, for treating CL.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. m4825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni E Ferreira ◽  
Andrew J McLachlan ◽  
Chung-Wei Christine Lin ◽  
Joshua R Zadro ◽  
Christina Abdel-Shaheed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Osteoarthritis Pain

Abstract Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference −5.30, 95% confidence interval −7.31 to −3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (−9.72, −12.75 to −6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (−18.60, −31.87 to −5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (−17.50, −42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (−7.55, −18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (−15.95, −31.52 to −0.39) and 3-12 months (−27.0, −36.11 to −17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (−3.55, −5.22 to −1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (−5.10, −7.31 to −2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (−6.07, −8.13 to −4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. Conclusion Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials of Early Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Ladapo ◽  
John E. McKinnon ◽  
Peter A. McCullough ◽  
Harvey Risch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

Objective--To determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) reduces the incidence of new illness, hospitalization or death among outpatients at risk for or infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Design--Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Data sources--Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, medRxiv, PROSPERO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Also review of reference lists from recent meta-analyses. Study selection--Randomized clinical trials in which participants were treated with HCQ or placebo/standard-of-care for pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, or outpatient therapy for COVID-19. Methods--Two investigators independently extracted data on trial design and outcomes. Medication side effects and adverse reactions were also assessed. The primary outcome was COVID-19 hospitalization or death. When unavailable, new COVID-19 infection was used. We calculated random effects meta-analysis according to the method of DerSimonian and Laird. Heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated by calculation of Cochran Q and I2 parameters. An Egger funnel plot was drawn to investigate publication bias. We also calculated the fixed effects meta-analysis summary of the five studies. All calculations were done in Excel, and results were considered to be statistically significant at a two-sided threshold of P=.05. Results--Five randomized controlled clinical trials enrolling 5,577 patients were included. HCQ was associated with a 24% reduction in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization or death, P=.025 (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.97]). No serious adverse cardiac events were reported. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal. Conclusion--Hydroxychloroquine use in outpatients reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Serious adverse events were not reported and cardiac arrhythmia was rare. Systematic review registration--This review was not registered.

scholarly journals Botulinum Toxin for the Treatment of Focal Task-Specific Hand Dystonias: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-44
Author(s):  
Nigel Ashworth ◽  
Henry Aidoo ◽  
Alexander Doroshenko ◽  
David Antle ◽  
Charl Els ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Botulinum Toxin ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Focal Task

Objective:Botulinum Toxin (BTX) has become a widely used treatment in several dystonic conditions, but the evidence for its efficacy has largely come from open trials and expert opinion. This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of BTX in the treatment of Focal Hand Dystonia (FHD) in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).Methods:We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, SPORT Discus, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for randomized, placebo-controlled trials on the use of BTX for FHD.Results:Of 1,116 publications retrieved from the databases searched, three publications were included. The evidence identified pertains to focal task-specific hand dystonias. Sixty-nine participants were involved in the three RCTs with a mean duration of symptoms of 7.5 years. Participants were assessed using a combination of self-reported and functional performance outcome measures following injections of BTX subtype A (BTX-A) or placebo. The Oxford Quality Scale was used to assess the included studies, and the three studies each scored 3/5 or above. The included studies reported no adverse events with BTX-A use, other than muscle weakness and pain at the injection sites.Conclusion:The number of participants included in these three trials is too small to draw dependable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of BTX-A for FHD. There is currently not enough evidence to recommend the routine use of BTX-A for FHD.

scholarly journals Pharmacologic and Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for HIV-Neuropathy Pain. A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (12) ◽  
pp. 762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aikaterini Amaniti ◽  
Chrysanthi Sardeli ◽  
Varvara Fyntanidou ◽  
Panagiota Papakonstantinou ◽  
Ioannis Dalakakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pharmacologic Therapies

Background and Objectives: Among HIV infection symptoms, sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) remains a main cause of suffering, with incidence varying from 13–50%. So far, numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments have been tested, although few evidence-based analgesic options are available. We conducted an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for pain control, in patients with HIV neuropathy. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus/Elsevier, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), USA Clinical Trials registry, and The International Web of Science up to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies were included. Efficacy was defined as pain reduction during the study period. Safety was estimated from adverse events. A meta-analysis was performed whenever possible. Results: 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for analysis (7 evaluating non pharmacologic interventions, 20 pharmacologic therapies). Non-pharmacologic studies (n = 742) involved seven different therapeutic modalities. Only Acupuncture/Moxibustion showed pain reduction over placebo, Gracely Pain Scale Mean (SD): Acu/Moxa 0.85 (0.12), placebo 1.10 (0.09), p = 0.05. Pharmacologic studies, involving 2516 patients revealed efficacy for capsaicin 8% over placebo (mean difference −8.04 [95% CI: −14.92 −1.15], smoked cannabis (where pooling data for meta-analysis was not possible) and recombinant Nerve Growth Factor. Conclusion: Despite various modalities for pain control in HIV-SN, strongest evidence exists for capsaicin 8% and smoked cannabis, although of low methodological quality. Among non-pharmacologic modalities, only Acu/Moxa gave a marginal beneficial effect in one study, possibly limited by inherent methodological flaws.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bone-modifying agents for the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16067-e16067
Author(s):  
Kenji Omae ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Michitaka Honda ◽  
Tsunenori Kondo ◽  
Yasunobu Hashimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

e16067 Background: Bone-modifying agents (BMA) have been well-demonstrated to be effective for preventing and inhibiting skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with bone metastases of breast or prostate cancer. However, the role of BMA treatment has not yet been clearly defined in patients with bone metastases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BMA in patients with bone metastases of RCC. Methods: Literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials of BMA for the treatment of bone metastases in RCC patients. The primary outcomes were SRE and serious adverse events (AEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with a random effects model. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (No. CRD42016032742). Results: Three studies (259 patients) were identified for the systematic review. Two studies that compared zoledronic acid with placebo or non-zoledronic acid showed that zoledronic acid reduced the SRE risk by 68% (HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19–0.55; P < 0.0001). The quality of evidence was moderate. No serious osteonecrosis was reported in both studies. The incidence of serious AEs was identical (80%) on both treatment arms in one study and not reported in the other study. In the remaining study, which compared denosumab with zoledronic acid, analyses of the individual patient data shared through Amgen showed a favorable trend for denosumab in terms of SRE (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.43–1.17) and serious AEs (risk ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.68–1.08), but this trend did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: The moderate-quality evidence indicates that zoledronic acid significantly reduces the risk of SRE among patients with bone metastases of RCC.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of pre-exposure of antibiotic prophylaxis for leptospirosis: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benny Rashuaman-Conche ◽  
Silvana Loli-Guevara ◽  
Ethel Rodriguez ◽  
Carlos Alva-Diaz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Antibiotic Administration ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Introduction: Leptospirosis is the most widespread zoonosis in the world. It represents a public health problem especially in tropical and subtropical regions, but it is also presents in temperate regions. Spirochetes from leptospira genus cause the disease, they affect humans as an intermediate host. About pre-exposure prophylaxis for people at risk, antibiotics such as doxycycline or azithromycin were used to prevent the development of leptospirosis and its related adverse outcomes. However, the evidence about the efficacy and safety of this intervention is limited. Objectives: To determine whether pre-exposure antibiotic administration prevents infection, hospitalization, or mortality from leptospirosis, without causing severe adverse effects. Methods: We propose to do a systematic review and meta-analysis. We will search in Pubmed (Medline), Embase.com, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS and ClinicalTrials.gov. Individual randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, cohorts, and cases-control studies will be included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria set. The flow chart for selecting studies to be included will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA guide. The methodological quality of the studies will be evaluated by duplicate. Subsequently, the qualitative analysis of the data will be carried out and the feasibility of a quantitative meta-analysis will be evaluated. Finally, a summary of findings table will be presented according to the feasibility of the meta-analysis. Results: The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: This systematic review will sum up-to-date evidence about the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, hospitalization and mortality.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e027376
Author(s):  
Man Yang ◽  
Yuanyuan Yu ◽  
Ping-Guang Lei ◽  
Jinqiu Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Irritable Bowel Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Individual Species ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Irritable Bowel

IntroductionIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder affecting approximately 10% to 25% of the adult population. A large number of clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics for IBS but the results were inconsistent. Previous meta-analyses have shown that probiotics are effective for IBS, but the comparative efficacy of individual species is unclear. In addition, evidence regarding the superiority of combination over single probiotic is still lacking. We, therefore, perform this study to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of various species of probiotics, and combination regimens for the treatment of IBS.Methods and analysisThis study is a systematic review with network meta-analysis. We will search PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL for randomised controlled trials comparing probiotics with placebo or comparing different probiotics for IBS, with no language restrictions. The primary outcomes will be treatment response and global IBS-symptom score. We will initially combine included studies with traditional pairwise meta-analysis and then with random-effects network meta-analysis. We will quantify the effect of potential effect modifiers by meta-regression if appropriate. We will check the consistency assumption by testing the absolute difference between direct and indirect estimates for comparisons in closed loops. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the GRADE framework.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for literature-based studies. We will disseminate the findings through publications in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018102101

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document